This article addressed the fight over the proposed World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, D.C. The question is not "Should we have a memorial to the most momentous event of the 20^th century?" but, "Where should it be located, and what should be its design?" Those answers are now in the hands of the federal courts. A very eclectic coalition of anti-memorial groups has filed suit against the National Capitol Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and others, asking that the project be stopped. The coalition contends that historic preservation laws were ignored, that the public was shut out of the decision-making process, and that these governmental agencies neglected their legal obligation to protect open public space. How did we get to this point?

      Getting approval for a memorial on or near the Mall requires two acts of Congress and approval of the location and design by three governmental bodies. Congress must pass an act to give approval for a memorial, and again, they must pass an act to place it on the Mall. Then the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capitol Planning Commission, along with the Secretary of the Interior, must approve the design, and the location. Congress passed the necessary laws, and President Clinton signed them, in 1993 and 1994. The memorial was finally approved in September 2000. So what is the problem?

      The problems began shortly after the two required congressional acts were signed into law. The site was switched and the design was radically altered twice. An influential senator picked up the project, and then just as quickly abandoned it. Just recently, someone leaked two National Park Service documents, which turned out to be smoking guns.

      There seem to be two significant issues, historic preservation and process. Many, including the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, think, "they are decimating the most sacred space in America." But, the question becomes "Which Mall are we to preserve?" The Mall has changed dramatically over the years since first envisioned by Pierre L'Enfant. Until the end of the 19^th century, the land where the Lincoln Memorial and the Reflecting Pool are, and where the World War II Memorial might be, didn't even exist. It lay under the Potomac. So again, "Which Mall? The one from 1796, or 1850, or 1902, or some other?"

      The process has been very convoluted with many accusations arising from several angles. Almost everyone agrees that the design competition was botched, at least at first. The GSA was put in charge, but they ended up treating it more like a routine government project. This ended up severely limiting the possible entries. Only 430 designers entered, compared to the 1425 who entered the Vietnam Veterans Memorial competition. A design by Friedrich St. Florian, an architect from Rhode Island, was chosen. But, the Fine Arts commission thought it was overbuilt, although they liked it in principle. A redesign was submitted in 1998, and our influential senator, Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), was behind the project again. More revisions were unveiled in 1999 amidst charges that much of the original design had crept back in. Many people also accuse the design of being "fascist." Pillars, wreaths, a coffin, eternal flames, and triumphal arches remind many of the imperial symbology of the Nazis.

      The National Park Service had said earlier that the monument would have "no significant impact" on the historic qualities of the Mall, and the Fine Arts commission had argued that the proposed Rainbow Pool site was a "sort of no man's land." But, the leaked National Park Service documents seemed to show otherwise. The first was an unreleased 1999 renomination of the western half of the Mall, which includes the Reflecting and Rainbow Pools, to the National Register of Historic Places due to their being "integral components of the designated historic landscape of the Lincoln Memorial." The second was a long overdue, and unpublished, Cultural Landscape Report that was written to guide and minimize the impact of future changes. This document concluded that the importance of the memorial and the pools "cannot be separated."

      So, what is to be done about this situation? The fate of the World War II Memorial is now in the hands of the federal courts, but what about future memorials? A draft plan envisions closing the Mall to new projects, and spreading new memorials throughout D.C. and Arlington. Not everyone agrees with this plan though.

      It will be interesting to see how the future of the Mall and future memorials plays out. As an Army retiree, I have a great interest in seeing a World War II Memorial erected. And, I hope that it may be prominently placed on the Mall. I just hope that after all the controversy has died away, that it turns out to be as beautiful and ineffable as the very controversial Vietnam Veterans Memorial did.

Source: Shea, Christopher, The Brawl on the Mall in Preservation, January/February 2000, pp. 36-43 and 76.